AUGUST 28, 2001 FILE NUMBER: XXXXXX XXXXXXXXX JOE BLOW ANY STREET SOMETOWN, ST. XXXXX DEAR CONSUMER: WE ARE IN RECEIPT OF YOUR CORRESPONDENCE IN WHICH YOU REQUEST THAT WE REMOVE UNAUTHORIZED INQUIRIES FROM YOUR CREDIT FILE. A CREDIT GRANTOR DOES NOT HAVE TO HAVE WRITTEN AUTHORIZATION FROM THE CONSUMER IN ORDER TO PULL A CREDIT FILE, ONLY A PERMISSABLE PURPOSE. IF YOU FEEL THAT THE COMPANIES WHO INQUIRED INTO YOUR FILE DID NOT HAVE PERMISSABLE PURPOSE AS OUTLINED IN THE FAIR CREDIT REPORTING ACT SECTIO 604, YOU MAY WISH TO CONTACT THEM DIRECTLYCONCERNING THEIR REASON FOR ACCESSING YOUR FILE. iF THEY FIND THEIR INQUIRY IS INCORRECT, THEY MAY PROVIDE US WITH WRITTEN AUTHORIZATION REQUESTING THE REMOVALE OF THE INQUIRY. PLEASE INCLUDE THE FILE NUMBER FROM THE UPPER RIGHT CORNER ON ALL CORRESPONDENCE WITH TRANS UNION. SINCERELY, CUSTOMER REALTIONS DEPARTMENT TELEPHONE: 1-800-916-8800 * Is this the new way of doing things at TU? -Om
I got the same thing from them. I wrote them back saying that I have the right to dispute negative items. and that "too many inquiries" is a negative. They just received the letter last week. We'll see how that turns out.
That is the was things are going..."PERMISSIBLE"...by their standards...NOT YOURS!!! THAT MEANS THEY DON'T EVEN HAVE TO ASK YOU...LIKE INSURANCE COMPANIES...yes it is a sore spot...THEY CAN SEE FROM YOUR CREDIT REPORT THE NUMBER OF TICKETS YOU WILL GET, THE NUMBER OF ACCIDENTS YOU WILL HAVE, AND THE AMOUNT OF TIME YOU WILL SPEND FIXING YOUR HOUSE!!!!
I have gotten that letter 3 times, and I haven't stopped disputing yet. This 4th time, I wrote under the reason "unpermissible purpose as outlined in the Fair Credit Reporting Act Section 604" lol. Turn their own mush against them. I'll see what happens. I've also used planetfeedback against them. One way another, I'll win over those bastards! lol
I have also received this letter. I wrote back that not only are they negatives, but I was concerned that if these are "PERMISSABLE" inquiries they should not appear as hard inquiries as they do on my report. The response was a duplicate of the first letter, like they didn't even read the second I sent. I am still disputing these, but am taking it slowly.
